Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Enhancing information capacity that can be used to improve services for people with disabilities remains an ongoing public health challenge. Research that can lead to improved state data systems for this population is still in its infancy. In this exploratory study, we have identified common characteristics needed to manage program services within one state's provider network and proposed a conceptual framework for developing a statewide system. We identified three broad information areas: assessment, administration, and assurance. Linking data elements to a program's information deficiencies allows lead state agencies responsible for public health functions for persons with disabilities to facilitate administrative coordination between programs having mutual information and management needs. By implementing strategies that share information without jeopardizing program autonomy, states can improve services for people with disabilities. Incorporating this framework extends the boundaries of a comprehensive disability information system beyond survey monitoring.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, E.L. , Friede, A. , Moulton, A.D. , & Ross, D.A. (1995). A framework for integrated public health information and practice. Public Health Management Practice, 1(1), 43—47. Retrieved May 13, 2001, from http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/INPHO/publications_framework.asp

Baldwin, W. (2000). Information no one else knows: The value of self-report . In A. A. Stone , J. S. Turkkan , C. A. Bachrach , J. B. Jobe , H. S. Kurtzman , & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 3—7). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barnard, T.H. (1990). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Nightmare for employers and dream for lawyers? St. John's Law Review , 64(2), 229—252.

Black, C. , & Roos, N.P. (1998). Administrative data. Baby or bathwater. Medical Care, 36(1), 3—5.

Blanck, P.D. (1997). The economics of the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part I—Workplace accommodations. Depaul Law Review, 46, 877—914.

Bloom, Y. , Figgs, L.W. , Baker, E.A. , Dugbatey, K. , Stanwyck, C.A. , & Brown-son, R.C. (2000). Data uses, benefits, and barriers for the behavioral risk factor surveillance system: A qualitative study of users. Journal of Public Health Management Practice , 6(1), 78—86.

Christopher, J.W. (1995). Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Disabling the disabled. Cumberland Law Review, 25, 715—752.

Friede, A. , & O'Carroll, P.W. (1996). CDC and ATSDR electronic information resources for health officers. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2, 10—24.

INPHO Evaluation Working Group. (1997). An evaluation of the CDC Information Network for Public Health Officials (CDC INPHO). Retrieved April 22, 2001, from http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/INPHO/publications_andyeval.asp

10.

Roos, N.P. (1999). Establishing a population-based policy unit. Medical Care, 37(Suppl 6), 15—26.

11.

Roos, N.P. , Black, C. , Roos, L.L. , Frohlich, N. , DeCoster, C. , Mustard, C. , et al. (1999). Managing health services: How the population health information system (POPULIS) works for policymakers. Medical Care, 37 (Suppl 6), 27—41.

12.

Stein, M.A. (2000). Empirical implications of Title I. Iowa Law Review, 85, 1671—1690.

13.

Verbrugge, L.M. , Merrill. S. S. , & Liu, X. (1999). Measuring disability with parsimony. Disability Rehabilitation, 21(5—6), 295—306.

Developing Comprehensive Statewide Disability Information Systems

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References